[Person of Color]

They don't care about backlash, they just made a billion dollars.

[Forge]

Protected by Viper, on 18 May 2014 - 07:26 PM, said:

They don't care about backlash, they just made a billion dollars.

no jew references?
tsk.

[Person of Color]

Twitch.tv is frequented by autistic speedrunners and virgins. They are a blight on society. If there's one thing I don't want to do, it's watch some anonymous faggot play video games.

[Fox]

Hendricks266, on 18 May 2014 - 04:39 PM, said:

Google/YouTube Reportedly Set To Buy Twitch For Over $1 Billion

Fuck.

[Minigunner]

I could care less about this merger. Twitch is a shit service regardless.

[MusicallyInspired]

This is still bad because it means that everything bad about YouTube will be transferred over to Twitch, the very site people were using INSTEAD of YouTube because of their moronic copyright flagging decisions. This is going to ruin game reviewers even more than it is. Bah. Don't be evil my eye. Google has crossed the line as far as I'm concerned. Screw them.

[Fox]

He has been living on the other side of the line for a long time.

[High Treason]

MusicallyInspired, on 18 May 2014 - 09:09 PM, said:

This is going to ruin game reviewers

I never understood where this idea comes from, no copyright flag has ever damaged any review I have done... Oh, wait, that's right, I refuse to earn ad revenue on principal, but filthy capitalists like AngryJoe can't make an honest dollar so they piss and moan on camera when their little scheme collapses, even earning money off of people dying, gotta get every last cent.

I should add that strangely, very little of anything I have done has ever had a copyright claim against it. Music gets picked up and I'm fine with the label earning money, it's their track and I used it without permission, that seems fair. One thing that did happen is Second Reality got flagged as a techno song that came out 5 years after the demo, I disputed the claim by merely quoting the demo's license (Which states you must not earn money from the distribution of the demo) and it disappeared. So whilst I cannot speak for others, for me the system works.


I hope Google DO buy Twitch, because I can neither watch or stream to Twitch since some update they did last year, we don't all have fiber optic you know! YouTube's streaming, on the other hand, works very well and doesn't shut down just because your connection cannot achieve the bit rate their server wants.


I'm not saying that Google doesn't come without it's own problems however.

[Fox]

You don't get it. There are some people who where making a living with reviews, but all of a sudden the revenue from their videos was transferred to someone else because of some stupid soundtrack autodetection.

Though I suspect this may be a scheme from YouTube to fuck up copyright holders. "You want us to shut down content under unreasonable copyright violation claims? Let's see how it feels when every single living fans of your get a message saying you raped them."

[High Treason]

No, I do get it. You use copyrighted material which you do not have a right to use and the copyright holder will get their loyalties back one way or another; either you pay for them or the ads do... Got a problem with it? Fine, GTFO, you had every opportunity to abide by our license agreement and the license of the materials used. You can't expect to just sit on your ass and live off of money made with other people's work, get a real job like normal people.

If you are going to earn money from YouTube, it should be with completely original content AND it should be a side thing that you do as well as a real job, anyone and everyone that tries to live from YouTube revenue has and will fail and deserves to fail because they are stupid, the internet is simply too fickle and volatile to be relied upon in this manner.

[Fox]

High Treason, on 18 May 2014 - 10:23 PM, said:

You use copyrighted material which you do not have a right to use

Wrong, you do have the legal right.

High Treason, on 18 May 2014 - 10:23 PM, said:

completely original content

Please list one work with "completely original content".

High Treason, on 18 May 2014 - 10:23 PM, said:

it should be a side thing that you do as well as a real job, anyone and everyone that tries to live from YouTube revenue has and will fail and deserves to fail because they are stupid, the internet is simply too fickle and volatile to be relied upon in this manner.

Countless people make their living this way. And you should be more carefull about what you write before calling other stupid.

[High Treason]

Fox, on 18 May 2014 - 10:47 PM, said:

Wrong, you do have the legal right.

No, if you read the license for most music, films and games you would find a notice stating unauthorized reproduction is prohibited. YouTube's licenses also state that you should not use copyrighted works to which you do not have permission and it reminds you on the upload page.

I was going to sit here and quote UK copyright law (Most other countries are similar, notably the USA) but I'd just recommend reading this and this.

Quote

Please list one work with "completely original content".

You are taking it out of context. Fine, Murun Buchstansangur is probably the best I can think of. All ideas come from somewhere but you shouldn't just outright use other people's work and expect to get rich for it, it'd be like you trying to earn money from Duke 64.

Quote

Countless people make their living this way. And you should be more carefull about what you write before calling other stupid.

And countless more have been ruined this way. Careful? I'm very close to doing it again. Sorry man, looks like we'll have to agree to disagree because I'm not changing my mind and you're clearly stuck in your delusions.

[Hendricks266]

High Treason, on 18 May 2014 - 11:02 PM, said:

this

Quote

What does fair use allow?

Under fair use rules, it may be possible to use quotations or excerpts, where the work has been made available to the public, (i.e. published). Provided that:

The use is deemed acceptable under the terms of fair dealing.
That the quoted material is justified, and no more than is necessary is included.
That the source of the quoted material is mentioned, along with the name of the author.

http://www.copyright..._work_of_others

Quote

What is fair dealing?

[...]

Criticism or review

Quoting parts of a work for the purpose of criticism or review is permitted provided that:

The work has been made available to the public.
The source of the material is acknowledged.
The material quoted must be accompanied by some actual discussion or assessment (to warrant the criticism or review classification).
The amount of the material quoted is no more than is necessary for the purpose of the review.

[Hank]

High Treason, on 18 May 2014 - 11:02 PM, said:

No, if you read the license for most music, films and games you would find a notice stating unauthorized reproduction is prohibited. YouTube's licenses also state that you should not use copyrighted works to which you do not have permission and it reminds you on the upload page.

When you record a game play, it is you playing it. How could this possibly be a copyright infringement?
To the best of my knowledge, the only people complaining about it, are those developers who made shitty games, and do not wish their game to be seen in action, let alone be ridiculed by the critics.

[High Treason]

I'm aware of fair use.

If I review a game and include music or some media that has nothing to do with the review I am still in violation of the law, too many people simply get greedy and think they can do whatever the hell they want. Again, AngryJoe and others would often include music which was not the object of the review and they had no permissions to use it.

Also, at the end of the day, YouTube is a private website, so they are free to do whatever they please with it. There are even a lot of rules I don't agree with myself, but they are there and you can't expect nothing to happen if you break them.

@Hank; So if I record a movie, it's me watching it so this automatically makes it OK? Though, yes, both parties are indeed to blame and many copyright holders abuse their power and act butthurt even if you do use their work in a way that is permitted. In my case I got chased up by the owners of Existenz and the remake of Oldboy which I looked at negatively, my video was subsequently blocked in almost every country.

[Hank]

High Treason, on 18 May 2014 - 11:29 PM, said:

@Hank; So if I record a movie, it's me watching it so this automatically makes it OK?

Not the same. The movie uploaded is a copy of the DVD, the game play is not a copy of the game only a record of the game play.

[Fox]

High Treason, on 18 May 2014 - 11:02 PM, said:

No, if you read the license for most music, films and games you would find a notice stating unauthorized reproduction is prohibited.

They hold no power.

High Treason, on 18 May 2014 - 11:02 PM, said:

I was going to sit here and quote UK copyright law (Most other countries are similar, notably the USA) but I'd just recommend reading this and this.

You was going to quote it, but then you realized that you couldn't because you haven't read it.

High Treason, on 18 May 2014 - 11:02 PM, said:

You are taking it out of context. Fine, Murun Buchstansangur is probably the best I can think of. All ideas come from somewhere but you shouldn't just outright use other people's work and expect to get rich for it, it'd be like you trying to earn money from Duke 64.

Can't you see the difference? Making a review video is different from uploading the entire fucking game.

High Treason, on 18 May 2014 - 11:02 PM, said:

And countless more have been ruined this way.

Just like any "real" job.

High Treason, on 18 May 2014 - 11:02 PM, said:

Careful? I'm very close to doing it again. Sorry man, looks like we'll have to agree to disagree because I'm not changing my mind and you're clearly stuck in your delusions.

I have exposed the facts while you have not provided any proper argument, so I don't think I am the delusional here.

[High Treason]

@Hank; How is it not the same? What if I record it in a cinema or sit the camera behind the sofa so you can see me watching it, seems to be the same basic idea to me.

@Fox; I could sit here and find a million things wrong with what you have just written, but as I said before... Screw it, I give up, whatever, have a nice day.

-----

Anyway, mergers and acquisitions... Well, I'm sure Apple and Samsung have probably been buying up a tonne of patents again so they can keep up their patent wars.

[Fox]

High Treason, on 18 May 2014 - 11:29 PM, said:

Also, at the end of the day, YouTube is a private website, so they are free to do whatever they please with it. There are even a lot of rules I don't agree with myself, but they are there and you can't expect nothing to happen if you break them.

True, but nobody questioned YouTube having the power to do so. You claimed that users don't have the [legal] right to make reviews.

High Treason, on 18 May 2014 - 11:29 PM, said:

@Hank; So if I record a movie, it's me watching it so this automatically makes it OK? Though, yes, both parties are indeed to blame and many copyright holders abuse their power and act butthurt even if you do use their work in a way that is permitted. In my case I got chased up by the owners of Existenz and the remake of Oldboy which I looked at negatively, my video was subsequently blocked in almost every country.

Recording a whole movie is not fair use, showing pieces of it is. Recording a game (or softwares in general) in use is fair use, uploading a working copy of it is not.

High Treason, on 18 May 2014 - 11:38 PM, said:

@Fox; I could sit here and find a million things wrong with what you have just written

Saying that there is something wrong with my post is not an argument.

And you are not the only one reading this thread.

[High Treason]

Fox, on 18 May 2014 - 11:41 PM, said:

Saying that there is something wrong with my post is not an argument.

1; This works both ways
2;

High Treason, on 18 May 2014 - 11:38 PM, said:

Screw it, I give up, whatever, have a nice day.

I just told you I am not arguing, you're doing a mighty fine job of that on your own.

[Fox]

You are arguing right now.

[Forge]

if someone can make money from internet media, then go for it. if they can earn enough for a living, then kudos to them.

blame youtube for being strict so nobody comes after them with frivolous lawsuits and shuts them down - makes more sense than moving the videos to one of the other bazillion media sites

[Micky C]

You think people who are serious about earning an income wouldn't choose an area as unstable as internet media, especially if they're doing it independently. If it doesn't work out, then what are you going to do? I can't really think of any skills that easily transfer over to other professions, and certainly nothing that would make you stand out against other candidates.

The thing with a lot of these review guys, is that you don't really need any special education at all to get into it. If I was more in the mood, I'd probably go into some fancy economics ramble, except my economics lecturer was shit and I haven't done the subject for 2 years. I recall something about market saturation and how it isn't good to be providing a service which you don't have a unique advantage in.

[Forge]

Mickey C, on 19 May 2014 - 06:40 AM, said:

You think people who are serious about earning an income wouldn't choose an area as unstable as internet media, especially if they're doing it independently.

life is full of risks.
will this old condom hold?
is that hooker really a dude?
if i eat around the green sections of this lunchmeat, will i get sick?

Mickey C, on 19 May 2014 - 06:40 AM, said:

If it doesn't work out, then what are you going to do?

porn

[MusicallyInspired]

All of this is beside the unethical and illegal copyright flagging of an entire 25+ minute video and stealing all its ad revenue for a little 10 second exerpt from a game trailer. What right does anybody have to the entire video? Even Angry Joe has said he'd be fine with the flagging if it was done fairly and proportionately. Have a percentage of the revenue equal to the amount of time in the video that is "infringing" copyright sent to the owner of that copyright and not that of the entire video. Splitting percentages is possible already because multiple videos with multiple copyrighted content gets split evenly between the infringed copyright holders (and YouTube) while leaving the original creator of the video who put the whole project together penniless. It could be 10 seconds from a trailer for one game here and then a minute of another trailer there in a 20 minute video and the revenue will be split evenly between the owners of each game trailer.

This is especially evil when the creator goes through a lot of trouble with props, green screens, post visual fx, custom sound and music creation, and hours and hours of editing for the purpose of entertainment. That's THEIR work. You're watching the video for THEIR work and THEIR unique personality not for the 10-second trailer clips. They should be paid for their hard work. It's completely unethical.

[ReaperMan]

Hendricks266, on 18 May 2014 - 04:39 PM, said:

Google/YouTube Reportedly Set To Buy Twitch For Over $1 Billion

Fuck.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

[MrBlackCat]

I wish I owned YouTube...
I would not post many or any rules, I would just shut down videos based on whatever I wanted. That way I could use "Judgement" rather than dealing with a bazillion complaints about what is or is not a rule violation. That would be awesome. (To me)

"The only rule of MrBlackCatTube is that I decide the rules and when they will be enforced. The rules are guaranteed to change at any time... or not... see how it works? If you are not comfortable with the Rule or lack of rules please GTHO!"

I realize this is not exactly the issue that was discussed, but still... I understand that it is their site and they are not bound to follow even their own posted rules if they so choose, and I have no issue with that. To pretend that having a non-original show on YouTube is a real job (like Game Reviews) is pretty much beyond reason. I think they should charge the poster for YouTube and then deduct from said charge down to $0 maybe, but revenue? No way.

I am still waiting for the majority of F'n morons to get over the concept of "Free" on the internet anyway... free is the most expensive, most damaging concept I have ever witnessed occur. Things like mobile games and applications as well as sites like YouTube, free-to-play games and on-Line services and communities like Playstation Home etc. They have to make money some how, and the majority of this is going to be advertisements which the vast majority do not want to deal with. Much like Healthcare in the US... Free is going to be the most expensive healthcare ever seen.
/rant off

MrBlackCat

[MusicallyInspired]

That's crap. Like I said some of these guys put in a lot of hard work, time, and energy to keep to a schedule to put out multiple videos every week. If they're doing a good job and they have an audience they deserve every dollar they get. It's hard work. It's not just capturing yourself playing a game. There's a lot more to it than that. As much as there is a lot that goes into creating a TV show. At least comparable to a one-man show like most reviewers are. It's a misconception that these people's jobs consist of 90% someone else's work. No, it's not. Nobody else can play or review a game the way some people do. Again, with all the planning, effects, props, editing, and all that goes into it they have to do besides playing the game, they're working bloody hard to be informative and entertaining while keeping an acceptable level of quality to keep people coming back for more. The cost of the equipment and software that goes into it staggering. And then there's maintenance on all of that stuff. It takes a lot of effort to make a show like that of consistently high quality and content every week. Claiming otherwise is simply disrespectful and ignorant.

There's also the argument that these people are providing an extremely valuable service by reviewing said games. It's not just the entertainment but the information. A lot of these people have varying opinions and when compared they give you a good objective view of what the game's all about. Then there's some reviewers who hold similar opinions to your own and you can trust their review as being competent and accurate to your own tastes. Of course nothing is like playing it yourself, but you at least know what to expect before making up your own mind. Copyright holders would seek to destroy this valuable source of information so that people have no way of knowing what a game's all about short of watching their trailers, reading (unreliable) reviews on gaming websites like IGN, and their own (lying) mouths (Gearbox, for instance).

I know there are some people out there who just play a game and expect to be paid for it, I'm not talking about those people. I'm not talking about laziness. I'm talking about the people who put in the hard work that everyone else does in the world to earn their keep.

And don't even get me started on universal healthcare (I'm Canadian)...

[Forge]

MusicallyInspired, on 19 May 2014 - 04:29 PM, said:

And don't even get me started on universal healthcare (I'm Canadian)...

I'm sorry.


sorry 'boot the health care too.

..."you have cancer and maybe four months to live. Not to worry though, we put in a referral for a life saving treatment. Should get approved in six to eight months."

[Person of Color]

Forge, stop being edgy, you'll scare the Baby Boomers.